Reply With QuoteEasy, money/wealth/jobs/powerOriginally Posted by BigFatPie
Invent a free, non polluting energy and try and market it.
You'll be killed in days.
Until the oil runs out, you have no chance of stopping fossil fuels
Hall Of Fame
The science on AGW has been settled since the at least the 80s. The only “controversy” is that which is stirred up by nonsense like that film.
Even if there was any dispute, why would we not move away from fossil fuels, switch to renewables, have electrically powered vehicles, and use land resources more efficiently to eat less meat and more plants? It’s a win win.
Hall Of Fame
Easy, money/wealth/jobs/power
Invent a free, non polluting energy and try and market it.
You'll be killed in days.
Until the oil runs out, you have no chance of stopping fossil fuels
Hall Of Fame
On the other hand to over react will also cause harm. We already have seen what happened with the diesel issue. Any mechanical engineer would have told you that diesel in small cars or under light loads is bad but no, the politicians got hold of it. Now we are going to build houses without a gas supply. And all electric cars! Give me strength. For one, who is looking at the life, cost, mining of, disposal of batteries?
Use our resources efficiently, do what can be done to cut out pollution. Radcliffe-on-Soar power station has made big steps compared to its original build. And pollution is a different issue to "greenhouse" gases.
The harm done by not having power when needed will be immense. On an individual scale like the African woman in her smouldering smoke filled hut. On a larger scale hospitals, industry, schools, rail transport. The potential for massive damage is immense. All for a possible and unproven situation. And this (us) lot won't be around to take the blame.
Or simply tell the next generation not to procreate. Problem solved.
Hall Of Fame
There is no connection between the woman cooking in her hut and climate change. Developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto protocol, the reason she didn't have mains electricity is the same reason she doesn't have a mains water supply and asphalt roads.
The writer and director of this film was responsible for Channel 4 being forced to issue their first ever on screen apology for another of his productions in 1997.
Many of the scientists interviewed for that film complained afterwards they had been misled and the subsequent investigation by the Independent Television Commission found the editing of the interviews with four of the contributors 'distorted or misrepresented their views' and found that they had been 'misled as to the content and purpose of the programme'.
For this film, after the screening one of the scientists published an open letter in which he said he had been quoted out of context and misinterpreted and asked Channel 4 to apologise.
Most of the other contributors have links not to fossil fuel companies but to think tanks financed by...wait for it...fossil fuel companies. That's called plausible deniability, kids.
One of them is a $2500 a day consultant for Opec and the Australian coal industry.
A representative of Greenpeace was interviewed for the film but her contribution never used.
This film wasn't an attempt to arrive at the truth or promote alternative theories in good faith, it was a cynical ploy to promote the interests of big business while pretending to be David taking on Goliath.
Hall Of Fame
Here's a fun video of what happens when you get all your information from YouTube.
https://youtu.be/zNAo6oGH0XY
Hall Of Fame
Agreed.
Much of the “dispute” about climate change has been caused by lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, in the guise of “libertarian think tanks” like the Heartland Institute. They contributed millions to Trump’s campaign which obviously has nothing to do with his own climate change denialism. They’ve obfuscated just like the tobacco industry did.
Funnily enough I’ve just been reading about new research which says that the Earth could be 140 years away from seeing carbon levels in the atmosphere last seen 56 million years ago. Suffice to say, it wouldn’t be a pleasant place to be.
Hall Of Fame
For a contrary argument you can take the stance that those who are funding and driving the argument in favour of the climate change equally have plausible deniability. The UN and globalist elite as well as making a great deal of money through the climate change issue are using it as a tool to engineer their agenda for a one world government. They provide funding to scientists and lobby groups to ensure that a sufficient level of alarm and hysteria is maintained to keep these wheels sufficiently oiled in order to progress their financial and controlling ambitions. Both sides of the argument can cite prejudicial and even corruptly motivated funding sources.
Hall Of Fame
Tony, who is the globalist elite?
Are massive fossil fuel companies not part of the globalist elite, whatever it is?
How much money (you know it's a great deal so presumably you can give me a figure)has the UN made from global warming and how exactly?
Hall Of Fame
This line of argument reminds me a lot of Putin's disinformation play book.
In the months following the plane being shot down over Ukraine, Russian state TV provided 24 different explanations of what might have happened to it, all backed up by pseudo evidence (the most memorable being a Google image result of a Ukrainian fighter jet being photoshopped onto a satellite image).
The strategy is a tried and tested: provide enough contrary explanations to muddy the waters and people will think "oh this is complicated, they all might be right and I suppose we'll never know. Better not form a firm opinion". It works.
But you can't put the vast majority of the world's scientists and a highly compromised filmmaker on the same level. And I'm not saying that because he's pro Brexit, I'm saying it because he has a track record of misleading contributors, ignoring scientific consensus and being close to lobbyists for multinationals.
Google his film about silicone implants reducing breast cancer and the pro GM food one. Look at what OFCOM says about him. Why should I trust him but not the vast majority of the world's scientists?
If someone tells you 2 plus 2 is 5, but logic tells you it's 4, it doesn't mean you should start thinking it's 4 and a half.
Hall Of Fame
Do you mean like if someone tells you that there is more than two genders and you can choose which gender you want to be because gender isn't defined by genitalia but social conditioning. Universities and various establishments accept and cater to this despite incontrovertible scientific evidence.......I wonder whether Putin's behind this too.
Posting Permissions